The Ben Shapiro Show - STILL WINNING: Senate Passes Big, Beautiful Bill, PLUS Supreme Court Sides With Trump!

00:00:00.000 Alrighty, folks, tons on today's show.

00:00:01.000 The big, beautiful bill is moving forward plus full-scale anti-Semitism and anti-Westernism at the Glastonbury Festival in the UK.

00:00:10.000 And the Supreme Court hands a bunch of victories to President Trump and Conservatives.

00:00:14.000 A lot coming up.

00:00:14.000 First, our Independence Day celebration begins right now with six months of Daily Wire Plus, absolutely free.

00:00:20.000 Here's the deal.

00:00:20.000 Join Daily Wire Plus for a year.

00:00:22.000 We'll cover half the cost.

00:00:23.000 That's every daily ad-free show from the most trusted voices in conservative media.

00:00:27.000 Unlimited access to our premium entertainment, breaking news alerts, and our in-depth investigative journalism, all in one place, all for half the price.

00:00:34.000 You're not just signing up for a membership.

00:00:35.000 You're taking a stand with millions who share your values.

00:00:37.000 Don't miss it.

00:00:38.000 Get six months free with our 4th of July deal right now at dailywireplus.com.

00:00:42.000 All righty, folks.

00:00:42.000 So the wins keep coming for President Trump.

00:00:45.000 On Saturday night, Senate Republicans finally passed their version of the big, beautiful bill, the one big, beautiful bill.

00:00:51.000 This is the tax bill that is going to retain President Trump's tax cuts from 2017.

00:00:56.000 It is also going to provide funding for building the wall and other immigration enforcement matters.

00:01:02.000 It is going to provide certain subsidies in certain areas, going to take away subsidies in other areas.

00:01:07.000 The vote was incredibly close.

00:01:08.000 Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky, of course, of course, and Tom Tillis of North Carolina, who opposed some of the cuts to future spending in Medicaid in particular.

00:01:18.000 They opposed.

00:01:19.000 But the bill passed 5149 in terms of starting debate on the legislation.

00:01:24.000 That means that in all likelihood, this bill is going to come to a vote in the House of Representatives sometime this week.

00:01:31.000 President Trump's goal of getting this thing done by July 4th is going to be kept, according to Politico.

00:01:37.000 The vote came after a day-long scramble by GOP leaders to win over several Republican senators who were viewed as undecided or who had vowed to block debate over their opposition to pieces of the bill, including an extended negotiating session that unfolded with various senators and Vice President J.D. Vance while the vote was underway.

00:01:52.000 Now, again, Ron Johnson, Senator Ron Johnson, he's been a guest on the program of Wisconsin.

00:01:56.000 He had opposed the bill.

00:01:58.000 He apparently won a promise of an amendment vote related to the expansion of Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

00:02:03.000 That proposal would end the 90% federal cost share for new enrollees under that arrangement, which got one of the big aspects of Obamacare.

00:02:12.000 Basically, it says that if the states want Obamacare, they're going to pay more for Obamacare.

00:02:16.000 Why should the federal government have to subsidize all of that?

00:02:19.000 Senate Majority Leader John Thune declined to comment on those concessions, but Johnson suggested that Thune and Trump would support the amendment, which had first been promoted by Florida Senator Rick Scott.

00:02:28.000 So there are enough sort of giveaways to the fiscal hawk wing to get Ron Johnson on board.

00:02:34.000 Senator Mike Lee of Utah also was part of the huddle, and he told reporters that part of the conversation focused on deficit reduction.

00:02:42.000 Now, again, there could theoretically be a blowup before this is all said and done, but President Trump personally intervened Friday and Saturday to shore up the whip count.

00:02:51.000 He did aggressively lobby Tom Tillis on Friday night, and then he attacked him publicly, but he lobbied some of the other senators as well.

00:02:59.000 Apparently, J.D. Vance interceded after the vote was called to win over Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski, and then he went to work on the other holdouts as well.

00:03:06.000 Senator Josh Howley also jumped on board.

00:03:09.000 So, again, we'll see what the final result here is.

00:03:13.000 However, it looks like the big, beautiful bill is moving toward passage.

00:03:16.000 Senator John Kennedy of Louisiana, he said, listen, it's time to vote.

00:03:19.000 Enough of this.

00:03:21.000 Look, I believe in teamwork.

00:03:24.000 It gives you somebody to blame.

00:03:27.000 But at some point, you've got to make a decision.

00:03:32.000 Now, our quarterbacks are John Thune and Mike Crapo.

00:03:36.000 They're both rock stars.

00:03:38.000 They're trying to make everybody happy.

00:03:41.000 It can't be done.

00:03:45.000 We have cussed and discussed and rediscussed.

00:03:49.000 We need to start voting.

00:03:51.000 Everybody needs to adult real hard and the jackassery has to stop. 1.00

00:04:01.000 I have encouraged John and Mike to tell everyone, look, we're going to start voting tomorrow at noon.

00:04:11.000 If you're not happy, offer an amendment.

00:04:15.000 We'll have a full amendment process.

00:04:18.000 But here's the bottom line.

00:04:20.000 In any legislation of this magnitude, some people are just going to have to settle for a ham and egg sandwich without the ham.

00:04:29.000 That's just the nature of the beast.

00:04:32.000 And I think that if you put everybody to the test and say, look, this is why God made votes.

00:04:38.000 It's time.

00:04:39.000 Vote.

00:04:39.000 I think the bill will pass.

00:04:42.000 Yeah, Senator Kennedy is correct about that.

00:04:44.000 As I said from the very outset with regards to the one big, beautiful bill, the choices were this.

00:04:48.000 High taxes and high spending or less high taxes and slightly lower spending than that.

00:04:53.000 Those were the choices.

00:04:54.000 There was no bill here that was going to fix America's massive deficit problem or massive debt problem.

00:04:59.000 There is not the support in the American body politic for that sort of thing.

00:05:03.000 The real changes that need to be made are not going to be made around the edges.

00:05:06.000 There's not even support to go back to 2019 levels of spending, which again would not fix our national debt.

00:05:11.000 It would be a lot better, but it wasn't going to fix our national debt.

00:05:14.000 Senator Katie Britt of Alabama also came out praising the big, beautiful bill.

00:05:17.000 Here she was.

00:05:19.000 We have been working tirelessly.

00:05:20.000 I think today we finished our 51st meeting on the big, beautiful bill, talking about different perspectives, trying to make sure that it's the very best product for the American people.

00:05:30.000 We're going to ensure that we secure our border, that that's not just for now, but we're doing that for generations to come.

00:05:36.000 We're going to make sure that the defense capabilities are of the utmost importance and that our warfighter is the best trained, equipped, and ready across the planet.

00:05:44.000 I think we have seen over the last several weeks, and this week in particular, how important that is.

00:05:49.000 We're going to unleash American energy, Kellyanne.

00:05:52.000 We know it's important not only for our economy, but it's also important for national security.

00:05:57.000 And then when you look at the tax breaks that we're going to have for everyday hardworking Americans, President Trump has ensured, whether it's no tax on tips or no tax on overtime, that we are putting the American people first.

00:06:09.000 We're giving them more of their hard-earned money right back in their pocket.

00:06:13.000 And we're going to make significant strides.

00:06:15.000 Okay, so again, a lot of this is true.

00:06:18.000 And some of the moderates in the House and in the Senate have come around.

00:06:22.000 So, of course, have some of the fiscal hawks.

00:06:24.000 Mike Lawler, who is a sort of holdout on the bill, given the fact that he's from New York, and a lot of the Congresspeople from New York who are Republican are worried about losing their districts if they do not get salt deductions that are high enough.

00:06:34.000 SALT, of course, are state and local tax deductions taken before the federal tax income is actually established.

00:06:41.000 He came out in a Saturday interview and said he supported the latest version of the state and local tax deduction in the Senate's mega bill, praising it as a big win.

00:06:48.000 He said, negotiation, you've got to know how to define a win and to take yes for an answer.

00:06:52.000 The latest Senate bill raises the salt deduction up to $40,000 through 2029.

00:06:56.000 Now, again, these are policies I don't like.

00:06:58.000 I don't like the state and local tax deduction. 0.92

00:07:00.000 I think it's ridiculous.

00:07:01.000 I think it's insane that the taxpayers of Florida who do not pay a state income tax are supposed to subsidize people who live in New York and California so that the state of New York or the state of California can continue to maintain these massively high taxes on their own citizens.

00:07:15.000 With that said, when you make a big piece of legislation, it is a game of horse trading and swapping and all the rest.

00:07:22.000 And it's actually gotten worse since the death of so-called earmarks.

00:07:26.000 So earmarks were all those things everybody hated where a senator would have a bridge named after him in a federal bill.

00:07:31.000 It was like, ah, that's super corrupt.

00:07:32.000 It's super terrible.

00:07:33.000 Okay, but here's the problem.

00:07:36.000 Everybody in Congress has to show their district they brought home the bacon.

00:07:39.000 So it either comes home in the form of a post office named after them or it comes in the form of a gigantic provision that provides for state and local tax deductions.

00:07:48.000 I would much rather have the post office named for Mike Lawler in his local district than have this gigantic state and local tax deduction in the state of New York.

00:07:54.000 But they got rid of earmarks and thus you are stuck with actually bigger spending in many ways than you would have had if you just had the sort of Christmas tree where people put ornaments on the Christmas tree.

00:08:03.000 And meanwhile, Josh Hawley, who was a holdout on the big, beautiful bill, he said on Saturday that he would back the signature legislation.

00:08:10.000 He said, I'm going to vote yes on the bill.

00:08:12.000 He said he was satisfied by a change that would help delay implementing changes to the provider tax language, which most states use to help cover Medicaid costs.

00:08:20.000 He said he was also encouraged by an increase in the rural hospital fund, which means his state will get more Medicaid funding for the next four years.

00:08:27.000 So again, much of the sort of solve here was bigger spending in certain areas.

00:08:31.000 Now, the place that really did get slapped was green energy.

00:08:35.000 And this led Elon Musk to come out and condemn the bill again.

00:08:38.000 Quote, the latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country.

00:08:44.000 He called it utterly insane and destructive.

00:08:46.000 It gave handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.

00:08:51.000 Now, again, one of the problems for Elon and for many of the people in sort of the tech space in the bill is that the bill gets rid of a lot of tax subsidies for electric vehicles.

00:09:01.000 It does provide certain tax subsidies for the coal industry.

00:09:04.000 It also apparently provides a sort of excise tax on wind farms and solar cells past 2027.

00:09:12.000 So the bill is, in fact, a slap against green energy.

00:09:15.000 But here's the question.

00:09:16.000 Can green energy actually live up to its promise or is it going to have to be subsidized by the American taxpayer forever?

00:09:22.000 What is the goal here?

00:09:23.000 Bottom line is this for all of this.

00:09:25.000 Again, the horse trading will continue.

00:09:26.000 There will be many more changes before we reach the final version of this bill, because once it passes the Senate, the House has already passed its own version.

00:09:33.000 Then they have to go to reconciliation.

00:09:34.000 A committee gets put together.

00:09:35.000 They negotiate.

00:09:36.000 I'm sure they're going to be negotiating all through the night, many times this week, until this thing actually gets passed.

00:09:43.000 But if the bill were not to pass, you would see the severe possibility of a true economic downturn.

00:09:49.000 Because the reality is that there are some economic data suggesting that a downturn may be headed for us anyway.

00:09:55.000 And there's some weakening economic data, even despite the fact that the Dow Jones Industrial Average is hitting all-time highs right now, that it's recovering, according to the Wall Street Journal.

00:10:05.000 Investors may not think the economy is taking off, but they're probably relieved the worst case scenarios feared in recent months have not yet come to pass.

00:10:11.000 Trump's tariffs, deportations, and cuts to the federal bureaucracy have bent the economy, but they haven't broken it.

00:10:16.000 The S ⁇ P 500 plummeted 19% from its previous high in February to its 2025 low on April 8th.

00:10:22.000 Behind that drop, fears that Trump's threatened tariffs of as high as 145% on China and 50% on other major trading partners would send inflation and interest rates up, sap business and consumer confidence, and spark a recession.

00:10:34.000 Instead, President Trump, of course, significantly dialed back a lot of those gigantic tariffs.

00:10:39.000 In recent months, business confidence fell amid those tariff threats, but businesses kept investing in equipment, factories, and technology.

00:10:47.000 Jason Furman, Harvard economics professor who advised Obama, said the macroeconomy is doing decently.

00:10:52.000 He says the market is more confident that Trump will back off if necessary.

00:10:55.000 Now, again, I've said this before, President Trump lives in the world of reality, and so the chances were pretty strong that he was going to eventually back off some of this tariff war as the effect started to be felt.

00:11:06.000 And President Trump would love nothing better than for the Federal Reserve to lower the interest rates.

00:11:10.000 That's only going to happen if he backs off a lot of the tariff talk that he has been doing.

00:11:14.000 All right, coming up, big victories for President Trump and conservatives at the Supreme Court.

00:11:18.000 First, PureTalk, my wireless company, a veteran-led company, believes every man and woman who's faithfully served the country deserves to proudly fly an American flag made in America.

00:11:26.000 That's why PureTalk is on a mission to give an allegiance flag, the highest quality American flag, period, to 1,000 U.S. veterans in time for the patriotic holidays.

00:11:33.000 Just switch your cell phone service to PeerTalk this month.

00:11:36.000 A portion of every sale will go to provide these high-quality flags to deserving veterans.

00:11:40.000 With plans from just $25 a month for unlimited talk, text, and plenty of data, you can enjoy America's most dependable 5G network while cutting your cell phone bill in half.

00:11:47.000 The average family saves over $1,000 a year.

00:11:51.000 We use PureTalk all the time for our coverage, for text, for business, for research.

00:11:56.000 Just go to PureTalk.com slash Shapiro, switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes.

00:12:00.000 Again, that's PureTalk.com slash Shapiro to support veterans and to switch to America's wireless company.

00:12:05.000 PureTalk, you're not going to be spending the kind of money you're spending right now, and your coverage is just as good, and you're helping out a veteran.

00:12:09.000 Head on over to PureTalk.com slash Shapiro and switch hassle-free in as little as 10 minutes.

00:12:13.000 Again, that's PureTalk.com slash Shapiro to support veterans this July 4th.

00:12:18.000 Also, this month, Tax Network USA proudly celebrates our nation's birthday, honoring freedom, resilience, and financial independence.

00:12:24.000 To mark the occasion, they're offering 10% off all services through July 4th.

00:12:28.000 If you're dealing with back taxes, or if you missed that April 15th deadline, don't wait.

00:12:31.000 The IRS is rapidly stepping up enforcement.

00:12:34.000 Penalties can add up quickly, up to 5% per month, maxing out a 25% of your total tax bill just for not filing.

00:12:40.000 That's on top of what you already owe.

00:12:41.000 But there's good news.

00:12:42.000 Tax Network USA can still help you turn things around.

00:12:44.000 Whether you're self-employed, run a business, or your books are a complete mess, their team knows how to cut through the chaos and find solutions that work.

00:12:51.000 Your consultation is always free.

00:12:52.000 Getting ahead of the problem now could help you avoid harsh penalties, wedge garnishments, or surprise bank levies.

00:12:57.000 Take that first step.

00:12:58.000 Call 800-9581000 or visit tnusa.com slash Shapiro.

00:13:03.000 Don't forget, you'll get 10% off all services through July 4th as part of their celebration of our nation's birthday.

00:13:08.000 Regain control of your finances with expert help from Tax Network USA.

00:13:12.000 Give them a call right now, 800-958-1000 or visit tnusa.com slash Shapiro.

00:13:18.000 Again, that's 800-9581000 or visit tnusa.com slash Shapiro.

00:13:23.000 The last thing President Trump wants or needs is an economic downturn.

00:13:26.000 The big, beautiful bill will provide a sense of stasis and calm to the markets that has been lacking for the past several months.

00:13:34.000 So that's a big victory for President Trump.

00:13:36.000 It's a huge victory for Senate Majority Leader Thune.

00:13:39.000 If the Republicans are able to cobble together a majority in a Senate where they have only 53 seats and in a House where they have a majority by a couple of seats, that is indeed a piece of tremendous legislative leisure domain by both Speaker of the House Johnson and Senate Majority Leader Thun.

00:13:54.000 President Trump gets another huge victory.

00:13:57.000 Speaking of huge victories, on Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States issued three separate rulings, all of which benefit people who are conservative, one of which benefits the Trump administration in particular.

00:14:06.000 So the most hotly covered of these particular opinions is Trump versus CASA Inc.

00:14:13.000 This is a case connected with the executive order that President Trump issued immediately upon entering office, suggesting that the executive branch should no longer recognize quote-unquote birthright citizenship for people who do not have at least one parent who's an American citizen.

00:14:29.000 So the basic idea is that if you come across the border illegally with your spouse and then you drop a baby in the United States, that baby should no longer be considered a citizen.

00:14:37.000 Now, there are two real issues here.

00:14:39.000 One is the meaning of birthright citizenship.

00:14:42.000 And that is an interesting, fascinating argument about the meaning of the clause in the 14th Amendment, Clause 1, and Section 201 of the Nationality Act of 1940, which suggests that you have to be subject to the jurisdiction thereof in order to be a citizen of the United States.

00:15:00.000 So if you're a Mexican citizen and you are subject to the jurisdiction of Mexico, but you're here illegally and therefore not subject to the jurisdiction of American law in the same way as a citizen, really, you should not be treated as a citizen and neither should the baby that you have in the United States. 0.50

00:15:13.000 That's the case made by the Trump administration.

00:15:16.000 On the other side of the ledger, people will argue that since essentially the beginning of the 20th century, birthright citizenship has been the predicate law for immigrants coming to the United States ever since a Supreme Court case called Wam Kim Ark.

00:15:31.000 But that particular matter was put to the side in this case.

00:15:34.000 The real question was whether a district court judge can issue a nationwide injunction to stop the implementation of the executive order.

00:15:42.000 So here the question is, one that we've seen over and over and over again.

00:15:46.000 That question is, can a district court judge say based on a single case, out of California or New York or Hawaii, that all across the country, an executive order or a piece of legislation cannot go into effect based on a single district court judge somewhere out there?

00:16:02.000 And the answer the court found is absolutely not. 0.91

00:16:05.000 That's ridiculous.

00:16:05.000 You cannot have individual district court judges moving beyond the scope of their authority in order to declare nationwide injunctions.

00:16:13.000 Essentially, if you come to a district court judge and you say this law has violated my rights, the district court can put an injunction on the federal government with regard to you.

00:16:22.000 You are the plaintiff.

00:16:22.000 But it can't put an injunction on everyone across the entire land vis-a-vis this law.

00:16:28.000 The opinion was delivered by Amy Coney Barrett.

00:16:30.000 So first of all, I'd like to point out that all the people who are ripping on Leonard Leo of the Federalist Society, full disclosure, I was a member of the Federalist Society when I was in law school because it was the conservative institution and is the conservative institution for law students and legal professionals.

00:16:46.000 People who are ripping on Leonard Leo for suggesting Amy Coney Barrett for the Supreme Court of the United States, let me just point out that just because she doesn't vote the way you want on every single case does not make her David Souter.

00:16:56.000 It does not make her Justice Breyer.

00:16:59.000 She is a very textualist judge.

00:17:02.000 So she wrote the opinion of the court, and it is a very clear opinion.

00:17:06.000 She says that the United States courts are not capable of simply issuing at the district court level nationwide injunctions.

00:17:16.000 Why?

00:17:17.000 Well, because there is no actual predicate to this.

00:17:20.000 Congress has never granted federal courts the authority to universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy, as she says, in this opinion.

00:17:29.000 She says the government is likely to succeed on the merits of its argument regarding the scope of relief.

00:17:34.000 A universal injunction can only be justified as an exercise of equitable authority, but Congress has never granted federal courts that sort of power.

00:17:44.000 The Judiciary Act of 1789 endowed federal courts with jurisdiction over all suits in equity.

00:17:49.000 And still today, the statute is what authorizes the federal courts to issue equitable remedies.

00:17:53.000 But that is not total equitable authority.

00:17:57.000 So, in other words, they would have to have special delegated authority.

00:18:00.000 Quote, neither the universal injunction nor any analogous form of relief was available in the High Court of Chancery in England at the time of the founding.

00:18:08.000 Equity offered a mechanism for the crown to secure justice where it would not be secured by ordinary and existing processes of law.

00:18:15.000 But that never extended to the idea of gigantic nationwide injunctions, even going all the way back to the founding era.

00:18:23.000 As Justice Barrett points out in a 6-3 majority for the court, that there is no long-standing record of universal nationwide injunctions being issued by courts.

00:18:34.000 Quote, the universal injunction was conspicuously non-existent for most of our nation's history.

00:18:39.000 Its absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.

00:18:44.000 That the absence continued into the 20th century renders any claim of historical pedigree still more implausible.

00:18:50.000 Even during the deluge of constitutional litigation that occurred in the wake of ex parte young throughout the Lochner era at the dawn of the New Deal, universal injunctions were nowhere to be found. 0.73

00:19:01.000 So, as Justice Barrett points out, there is no serious history of a nationwide injunction issued by a district court.

00:19:08.000 You cannot just have one judge in Los Angeles, California issue an injunction on all national law based on a singular case brought before the court.

00:19:21.000 So there is a rather hilarious portion of this opinion, and that is where Justice Barrett, as well as the rest of the court, absolutely rips into Justice Katanji Brown Jackson, who has seized the high ground as the worst member of the court.

00:19:38.000 So I thought it was Sonia Sotomayor by a long shot. 0.98

00:19:40.000 Sonia Sotsumayor is an awful justice, truly dumb. 1.00

00:19:43.000 She writes horrible opinions. 0.99

00:19:45.000 Elena Kagan, who is dean of the Harvard Law School and I was there, is a smart person with whom I disagree.

00:19:49.000 Justice Sotomayor has evidenced zero smarts.

00:19:52.000 Justice Katanji Brown Jackson has evidenced not only zero smarts, but zero actual principles.

00:19:58.000 So this opinion just rips apart Justice Katanji Brown Jackson's dissent, which honestly, it sounds like it was written by a first-year law school student who is familiar with online memory, but not with law.

00:20:10.000 The opinion says, Justice Jackson chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to any sources, nor frankly, any doctrine whatsoever.

00:20:19.000 Waving away attentions and limits on judicial power as a mind-numbingly technical query, she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.

00:20:30.000 In her telling, the fundamental role of courts is to order everyone to follow the law full stop.

00:20:36.000 And she warns, if courts lack the power to require the executive to adhere to law universally, courts will leave a gash in the basic tenets of our founding charter that could turn out to be a mortal wound.

00:20:45.000 Rhetoric aside, says the opinion, Justice Jackson's position is difficult to pin down.

00:20:50.000 She might be arguing that universal injunctions are appropriate, even required, whenever the defendant is part of the executive branch.

00:20:55.000 If so, her position goes far beyond the mainstream defense of universal injunctions.

00:21:00.000 At best as we can tell, though, her argument is more extreme still because its logic does not depend on the entry of a universal injunction.

00:21:06.000 Justice Jackson appears to believe the reasoning behind any court order demands universal adherence, at least where the executive is concerned.

00:21:13.000 In her law-declaring vision of the judicial function, a district court's opinion is not just persuasive, but has the legal force of a judgment.

00:21:20.000 Once a single district court deems executive conduct unlawful, it has stated what the law requires, and the executive must conform to that view, ceasing its enforcement of the law against anyone, anywhere.

00:21:31.000 We will not dwell on Justice Jackson's argument, says Justice Barrett, which is at odds with more than two centuries' worth of precedent, not to mention the Constitution itself.

00:21:38.000 We observe only this.

00:21:39.000 Justice Jackson decries an imperial executive while embracing an imperial judiciary.

00:21:44.000 No one disputes the executive has a duty to follow the law, but the judiciary does not have unbridled authority to enforce this obligation.

00:21:50.000 In fact, sometimes the law prohibits the judiciary from doing so.

00:21:54.000 See Marbury versus Madison. 0.99

00:21:57.000 What a slap that is, just for the lawyers and the crap. 0.96

00:21:59.000 Marbury versus Madison is like the number one constitutional law case because it establishes the idea of Supreme Court judicial oversight of legislative action or executive action. 0.98

00:22:10.000 That is the idea of Marbury versus Madison.

00:22:12.000 It established judicial review.

00:22:13.000 But what it found was that James Madison, who was then president, had violated the law, but it also held that the court couldn't actually issue a writ of mandamus ordering him to follow it.

00:22:24.000 So that is such a brute.

00:22:26.000 That's like you're a first year law school student.

00:22:30.000 And so you do not get to lecture us.

00:22:33.000 If you don't know Marbury versus Madison, you just don't know what the hell you're talking about is basically the idea here.

00:22:39.000 What a brutal put down by the majority of the court against Justice Jackson.

00:22:44.000 And again, her dissent is indeed quite astonishing.

00:22:49.000 Not only is it laden with terrible arguments, but it is written with actual means.

00:22:55.000 I mean, she actually says at one point, as I understand the concern, in this clash over the respective powers of two coordinate branches of government, the majority sees a power grab, but not by a presumably lawless executive choosing to act in a manner that flouts the plain text of the Constitution.

00:23:08.000 Instead, the majority, the power-hungry actors are wait for it, the district courts.

00:23:14.000 Okay.

00:23:15.000 Like, can I just point out, putting wait for it in a Supreme Court opinion like that between two ellipses, you're not writing for X.com, Justice Jackson.

00:23:25.000 You're making a ridiculous argument, but you're arguing it in the worst possible way also.

00:23:30.000 So just a brutal fate for Justice Jackson in that particular case. 0.89

00:23:34.000 But what does that mean?

00:23:35.000 Well, it means that the president of the United States can now move forward with the implementation of his executive orders until the Supreme Court weighs in on the actual law at issue for the whole country, which is how the appellate courts work.

00:23:48.000 So in other words, this does not mean that President Trump can now simply expel all kids who are born of illegal immigrant parents.

00:23:54.000 That's going to be appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court.

00:23:56.000 It'll be ruled on in October, and the court will probably find, I would imagine, by maybe a vote to seven to two or six to three, that actually birthright citizenship is what the Constitution orders, or at least what precedent requires.

00:24:07.000 It'd be kind of shocking if the Supreme Court found the other way, regardless of my feelings about the issue.

00:24:12.000 And for the record, I think that actually birthright citizenship is not mandated by the Constitution.

00:24:17.000 President Trump, for his part, put out a statement on truth social, quote, giant win in the U.S. Supreme Court.

00:24:21.000 Even the birthright citizenship hoax has been indirectly hit hard.

00:24:24.000 It had to do with the babies of slaves, same year, not the scamming of our immigration process.

00:24:28.000 What he means by that is that birthright citizenship is not what is meant by the 14th Amendment.

00:24:33.000 When it says that people who are born or naturalized in the United States or subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the United States, he means correctly that enslaved people are citizens. 0.99

00:24:45.000 That's what the 14th Amendment was designed to do. 0.76

00:24:47.000 Congratulations to Attorney General Pamboni, Solicitor General John Tower, and the entire DOJ.

00:24:52.000 Coming up, another big victory for President Trump at the Supreme Court.

00:24:55.000 First, you've heard me say it before, the past matters.

00:24:57.000 So if you've got a box of old tapes, photos, film reels sitting around, now would be the time to do something about it.

00:25:01.000 Legacy Box is offering my listeners 50% off.

00:25:04.000 Just head on over to legacybox.com slash Shapiro.

00:25:07.000 My family's got old home movies just like yours.

00:25:09.000 Some of them I hadn't seen in decades.

00:25:10.000 Legacy Box made it ridiculously easy to bring them back.

00:25:13.000 You send in your tapes, reels, whatever you got.

00:25:15.000 Their team in the U.S. digitizes everything by hand.

00:25:17.000 Then you get it all back.

00:25:18.000 Your originals plus clean digital files you can store, share, and rewatch anytime.

00:25:22.000 They've helped over a million families do exactly this.

00:25:25.000 And they can handle more than 15 types of media, VHS, Superate, cassette tapes, floor negatives, you name it.

00:25:30.000 I've done this for my parents.

00:25:31.000 I did this for my in-laws.

00:25:32.000 It is awesome.

00:25:32.000 You send all of your old stuff that's just out there falling apart in the garage to LegacyBox.

00:25:37.000 You get it back in the digital formats.

00:25:38.000 You can actually see these memories again.

00:25:40.000 And it's like seeing them for the first time.

00:25:42.000 It's amazing.

00:25:42.000 Go to legacybox.com slash Shapiro, claim 50% off.

00:25:45.000 That's legacybox.com slash Shapiro.

00:25:48.000 Preserve it, share it, pass it on.

00:25:50.000 You don't want to lose all that family history.

00:25:51.000 Head on over to legacybox.com slash Shapiro and claim 50% off today.

00:25:56.000 Also, I always used to assume that restless sleep was inevitable.

00:25:59.000 Night after night, tossing, Turning, waking up with that aching back, I convinced myself that's how sleep was supposed to be.

00:26:03.000 And then I tried Helix sleep, and everything changed.

00:26:06.000 It's truly been transformative for my sleep quality.

00:26:08.000 Now I easily fall asleep in minutes, even when current news stories are continuously demanding my attention.

00:26:12.000 What makes Helix different is they don't just sell you a random mattress, they actually match you with the perfect mattress for your body and sleep style.

00:26:18.000 Whether you're a side sleeper, back sleeper, somewhere in between, they have you covered.

00:26:22.000 They make it so simple to get your best night's sleep every night.

00:26:24.000 All you have to do is take their sleep quiz, get matched with a custom mattress based on your body type and sleep preferences.

00:26:29.000 And trust me, when you find the right match, you'll wonder how you ever slept on anything else.

00:26:35.000 Now, right now, I'm not at home, which means I'm not sleeping on my Helix Sleep mattress.

00:26:38.000 I got to tell you, it's affecting my sleep quality.

00:26:40.000 I want my Helix Sleep mattress.

00:26:41.000 It was made just for me.

00:26:42.000 You can have the same done for you.

00:26:43.000 Right now, Helix is offering an incredible 4th of July sale.

00:26:46.000 Visit helixleep.com slash men to get 27% off-site wide.

00:26:49.000 That's helixleap.com slash men for 27% off-site wide.

00:26:53.000 Make sure you enter our show name after checkout so they know we sent you.

00:26:56.000 Again, just visit helixleep.com slash men for this exclusive offer.

00:27:00.000 Sure is President Trump listing off some of the policies he would now be pushing at a press conference on Friday.

00:27:06.000 Some of the cases we're talking about would be ending birthright citizenship, which now comes to the fore.

00:27:13.000 That was meant for the babies of slaves. 0.99

00:27:15.000 It wasn't meant for people trying to scam the system and come into the country on a vacation.

00:27:21.000 This was, in fact, it was the same date, the exact same date, the end of the Civil War.

00:27:25.000 It was meant for the babies of slaves, and it's so clean and so obvious. 0.99

00:27:29.000 But this lets us go there and finally win that case because hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason.

00:27:40.000 It was meant for the babies of slaves. 1.00

00:27:43.000 So thanks to this decision, we can now promptly file to proceed with these numerous policies and those that have been wrongly enjoined on a nationwide basis, including birthright citizenship, ending sanctuary city funding, suspending refugee resettlement, freezing unnecessary funding, stopping federal taxpayers from paying for transgender surgeries, and numerous other priorities of the American people.

00:28:10.000 We have so many of them.

00:28:13.000 And so, again, President Trump triumphal about this Pamboni, the Attorney General.

00:28:17.000 She points out that these nationwide injunctions are basically coming from some of the most liberal courts in the country.

00:28:23.000 To put this in perspective, there are 94 federal judicial districts.

00:28:30.000 Five of those districts throughout this country held 35 of the nationwide injunctions.

00:28:38.000 Think about that.

00:28:39.000 94 districts.

00:28:41.000 And 35 out of the 40 opinions with nationwide injunctions came from five liberal districts in this country.

00:28:49.000 No longer.

00:28:52.000 So she is right about that.

00:28:54.000 Chief Justice Roberts made a good point.

00:28:55.000 So Chief Justice Roberts, again, I oppose his nomination.

00:28:57.000 I don't think he's been an amazing justice.

00:28:59.000 I think that he is more of a judicial pragmatist than he is a true textualist or originalist.

00:29:05.000 But he makes the point that it's not your job to decide in advance what the outcome of the case is going to be.

00:29:11.000 It's your job to actually look at the case.

00:29:12.000 So this is a slap against Katanji Brown Jackson, among others.

00:29:16.000 I don't start by saying if this comes out this way, this thing is going to happen, and that's a bad thing, as opposed to bad.

00:29:22.000 You start out with your rules about construction, about the application of precedent, and all that.

00:29:28.000 Now, if that leads you to a result that you look at and say, well, that can't be.

00:29:34.000 That's pretty bad.

00:29:35.000 Then you want to go back and look at your suppositions.

00:29:38.000 But sometimes the result is certainly not maybe one you would have liked, and maybe it's one that seems pretty surprising.

00:29:47.000 But you do have to keep in mind it's not your job to decide what the right result should look like.

00:29:52.000 It's your job to do the legal analysis to the best you can.

00:29:56.000 If it leads to some extraordinarily improbable result, then you want to go back and take another look at it.

00:30:01.000 But I don't start from what the result looks like and go backwards.

00:30:10.000 So that is the way that you're supposed to approach the law.

00:30:12.000 That obviously is not true for many people on the left side of the bench.

00:30:14.000 Scott Jennings over on CNN, who does a great job.

00:30:17.000 He actually quoted Elena Kagan, who voted the other way on this particular case from 2022 about nationwide injunctions, in which she felt precisely the opposite when it was a non-left-wing court holding up an action of Joe Biden.

00:30:29.000 I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it because I think she was right when she said it.

00:30:38.000 It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.

00:30:43.000 Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a Democratic president.

00:30:49.000 Now, she voted against the decision on Friday.

00:30:52.000 It just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.

00:30:55.000 Okay, now, again, he is totally right about this.

00:30:58.000 Members of the media, of course, went insane.

00:30:59.000 They've been declaring that imperial presidency is the thing since Trump.

00:31:03.000 Okay, here's the reality.

00:31:04.000 The power of the executive has expanded continuously for an extraordinary period of time in this country.

00:31:10.000 That's particularly true since the Obama era.

00:31:11.000 Since the Obama era, when Barack Obama decided that he was going to use a pen and a phone, he said this.

00:31:16.000 If I can't get things done through legislation, I will just use my pen and my phone to do things.

00:31:20.000 Since that happened, executive power has increased tremendously.

00:31:24.000 All the way up to and including, of course, Joe Biden, who tried to use OSHA.

00:31:27.000 We had to sue him to stop this.

00:31:28.000 OSHA to cram down a vaccine on 80 million Americans.

00:31:33.000 So don't lecture me now about how now we have a king.

00:31:35.000 All the same people who are complaining about Donald Trump now were very happy when Joe Biden was using executive authority to illegally alleviate student loans.

00:31:44.000 Here's CNN's Gretchen Carlson, however, doing this routine. 1.00

00:31:47.000 The first thing that came to mind today to me was that we may now have a king.

00:31:52.000 This is so different from how the separation of powers have worked in this nation for decades and decades.

00:31:58.000 So look, big picture, yes, huge win for Trump.

00:32:01.000 But something I want to bring up tonight is that I believe this will change the way that politicking works in America.

00:32:08.000 Because this won't just be for President Trump.

00:32:10.000 And if a Democrat would become president in three and a half years, they would be given this same power.

00:32:16.000 So this will change the way in which we politic in America, I believe, unless Congress steps in and supersedes this.

00:32:24.000 So, I mean, again, that's an insane statement.

00:32:27.000 We have a king now.

00:32:28.000 This is not the way policy, this is literally Always how policy has worked.

00:32:31.000 If you think that there's any president in American history who would have sat by while a district court judge simply annulled presidential edicts across the entire land, you're out of your mind.

00:32:41.000 That's not a real thing.

00:32:43.000 Meanwhile, Chen Saki says, Well, you know, the only reason the courts are even issuing these injunctions is because Trump is dictatorial.

00:32:48.000 Or maybe the reason they're issuing these injunctions is because many of these judges in district courts in left-leaning areas are of the political left, maybe.

00:32:58.000 So the only institutional bulwark against Trump's autocratic impulses has been the third branch of government, the courts.

00:33:05.000 And as Trump has pushed the limits of his power, the courts have had to check him over and over and over again, largely the lower courts, issuing nationwide injunctions to halt his executive orders as they decide what authority he actually has under the Constitution.

00:33:22.000 In fact, Trump's actions have been so extreme, the courts have had to use that power to stop him more than any other president in modern history.

00:33:32.000 I'm sorry, just because the courts are doing it more to Trump does not mean that Trump is more dictatorial.

00:33:37.000 It might mean that the courts are trying to seize more power.

00:33:40.000 MSNBC's Ellie Mistel, who for some reason is the legal analyst over there, he and Ali Velshi decided to talk about what if Trump wanted to murder you?

00:33:50.000 Would the courts stop it?

00:33:52.000 Imagine Donald Trump wants to do something illegal to you, Ali Velshi. 0.86

00:33:57.000 Imagine that he wants to murder you.

00:33:59.000 Imagine that he and Stephen Miller release an entire policy explaining about how they can murder Canadian journalists who are working in America because they're taking the jobs from real American journalists, right? 0.98

00:34:13.000 So he's going to murder you.

00:34:14.000 So you, Ali Velshi, you go to court.

00:34:17.000 You go to court in the Southern District of New York and you say like, I don't think this murder thing is constitutional.

00:34:23.000 It's clearly illegal.

00:34:24.000 It's clearly constitutional.

00:34:26.000 Donald Trump and Pam Bondi and Stephen Miller shouldn't be able to have a plan to murder me.

00:34:31.000 And the court says, you're right, Ali Velshi.

00:34:34.000 There's no way Donald Trump is allowed to murder you.

00:34:36.000 We're going to have an injunction. 0.81

00:34:38.000 We're going to stay the executive order saying that he's going to murder Canadian journalists.

00:34:43.000 And so you're like, great, awesome.

00:34:44.000 And you go home.

00:34:46.000 And then Pat Kiernan shows up and he's like, what about me?

00:34:49.000 I'm also a Canadian journalist.

00:34:50.000 Ashley Banfield shows up.

00:34:52.000 I'm also the Canadian.

00:34:53.000 What about me?

00:34:54.000 And the court's, well, I can't help you because Allie Velshi is the one who sued.

00:34:58.000 So Pat Kiernan, if you don't want to be murdered, you have to launch your entire own lawsuit in the Southern District of New York again to make sure that Donald Trump doesn't murder you.

00:35:10.000 Okay.

00:35:11.000 So first of all, if President Trump were to create an executive order to murder actual journalists, the Supreme Court would immediately take that up immediately.

00:35:22.000 Okay.

00:35:22.000 There is an acceleratory process by which the Supreme Court can take up these cases very quickly.

00:35:26.000 It would be struck down by the Supreme Court.

00:35:29.000 I love that they have to go to the worst that would happen here is President Trump might want to murder everyone.

00:35:33.000 And so everyone would have to bring an individual lawsuit, but the Supreme Court would never take it up. 0.94

00:35:36.000 They would just remain what ridiculous speculative nonsense.

00:35:40.000 Because the actual reality is that the other way is that any district court anywhere in America can simply invalidate a presidential action for the entirety of America.

00:35:50.000 Always.

00:35:51.000 That is the case that Ellie Mistel and the rest of these folks are making.

00:35:54.000 And it failed at the Supreme Court level.

00:35:55.000 Okay, so that was case number one.

00:35:57.000 In a second, we'll get to the socialist takeover of New York and, you know, some bad history associated with this sort of thing.

00:36:03.000 First, you know, when you're getting ready for bed, going around locking doors, turning off lights, you just want that peace of mind knowing everything's secure.

00:36:08.000 That's exactly what you get with SimplySafe.

00:36:10.000 It really makes all the difference when it comes to home security.

00:36:13.000 Most security systems only kick in after someone's already broken into your home.

00:36:16.000 By then, it's too late.

00:36:17.000 But SimplySafe's new active guard outdoor protection actually helps stop break-ins before they even happen.

00:36:22.000 Here's how it works.

00:36:23.000 AI-powered cameras work with live monitoring agents to spot suspicious activity around your property.

00:36:28.000 If someone's lurking around, the agents can talk to them in real time, turn on spotlights, call the cops if necessary.

00:36:32.000 It stops crime before it starts.

00:36:34.000 What I really like is there are no contracts and no hidden fees.

00:36:37.000 Plus, SimplySafe has serious credibility.

00:36:39.000 CNET just named them the best home security system of 2025.

00:36:42.000 Over 4 million Americans trust them.

00:36:44.000 They're also ranked number one in customer service by Newsweek and USA Today.

00:36:48.000 We personally have SimplySafe systems at our studios in South Florida.

00:36:51.000 It's great.

00:36:51.000 It means that when we leave the cameras at night, they'll be there in the morning.

00:36:54.000 Monitoring plans start around a buck a day.

00:36:56.000 They offer a 60-day money-back guarantee.

00:36:58.000 You can try it risk-free.

00:36:58.000 Visit simplysafe.com slash Shapiro.

00:37:00.000 Claim 50% off a new system with a professional monitoring plan.

00:37:03.000 Get your first month for free.

00:37:05.000 That's simplysafe.com slash Shapiro.

00:37:08.000 There's no safe like SimplySafe.

00:37:09.000 Also, make your home look spectacular this summer and all year round.

00:37:12.000 Early access to blinds.com's 4th of July mega sale is now live.

00:37:16.000 It's the easiest upgrade you'll make all season.

00:37:18.000 Blinds.com makes shopping for custom window treatment simple.

00:37:20.000 No showroom markups, no pushy salespeople showing up at your door.

00:37:23.000 Whether you're a DIY person or you want that full white glove service, their virtual design experts work on your schedule to help you find the perfect fit.

00:37:30.000 They can even handle measuring and installation if you want.

00:37:32.000 From classic shutters for your living room to blackout shades for better sleep, motorized options for convenience or outdoor shades for your patio, you can style every room from your couch on your time without any pressure.

00:37:41.000 Blinds.com makes it super simple.

00:37:44.000 They help us measure the windows.

00:37:45.000 They help install if we can't do it ourselves.

00:37:47.000 Like really, soup to nuts, they're really easy.

00:37:49.000 With over 25 million windows covered and 40,000 five-star reviews, it's easy to see why blinds.com is the top online retailer for custom window treatments.

00:37:56.000 And every order comes with their 100% satisfaction guarantee.

00:37:59.000 So you can shop with confidence.

00:38:01.000 Shopblinds.com's early access 4th of July mega sale right now.

00:38:04.000 Save up to 40% site-wide.

00:38:06.000 Plus, get a free professional measure up to 40% off at blinds.com.

00:38:10.000 Rules and restrictions may apply.

00:38:11.000 Alrighty.

00:38:12.000 Meanwhile, case number two, the Supreme Court ruled in a case called Mahmoud versus Taylor that parents have the right under the First Amendment freedom of religion to opt their kids out from classes, particularly for youngsters, that involve indoctrination into LGBTQ plus minus divided by sign propaganda.

00:38:28.000 The opinion here written by Justice Samuel Alito, again, a 6-3 decision.

00:38:34.000 And basically, what he finds here is that parents have shown they are entitled to a preliminary injunction.

00:38:39.000 Again, there can be an injunction from the top level from the Supreme Court.

00:38:43.000 A government burdens the religious exercise of parents when it requires them to submit their children to instruction that poses a very real threat of undermining the religious beliefs and practices that parents wish to instill.

00:38:52.000 And a government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on parents' acceptance of such instruction.

00:38:57.000 So this particular case, Montgomery County, Small children were being referred to particular books and classes on transgenderism and same-sex marriage that were designed to indoctrinate in a set of values.

00:39:11.000 And the opinion quotes from these books: there's one called Prince and Knight, which quote tells the story of a coming-of-age prince whose parents wish to match him with a kind and worthy bride.

00:39:19.000 After meeting with many ladies, the prince tells his parents he is looking for something different in a partner by his side.

00:39:23.000 And later, the prince falls into the embrace of a knight after the two finish battling a fearsome dragon.

00:39:28.000 And then the entire kingdom applauds on the two men's wedding day.

00:39:32.000 And then there's another book called Love Violet, which is about a young girl named Violet who has a crush on her female classmate, Mira.

00:39:39.000 And the girls end up together, of course.

00:39:42.000 And then there's books on transgenderism and all the rest.

00:39:45.000 And basically, the board contends that they must teach kids this stuff without telling parents and without giving parents an opt-out.

00:39:52.000 That is the idea.

00:39:54.000 The board provided teachers with a guidance document suggesting particular responses to inquiries by parents according to the opinion.

00:39:59.000 For example, if a parent were to ask whether the school was attempting to teach a child to reject the values taught at home, teachers were encouraged to respond, the quote, teaching about LGBTQ plus is not about making students think a certain way.

00:40:10.000 It is to show that there is no one right or normal way to be.

00:40:14.000 But that, of course, is a form of indoctrination because, of course, the left believes that there is a right way to be, which is to be on the left wing.

00:40:22.000 And religious parents believe there's a right way to be, and that is to be religious.

00:40:25.000 You're going to have to pick a set of values.

00:40:27.000 There is no apolitical when it comes to these sorts of questions.

00:40:31.000 The board rescinded parental opt-outs.

00:40:33.000 So more than a thousand parents signed a petition asking the board to restore those opt-out rights.

00:40:38.000 And the board was unmoved.

00:40:40.000 Instead, they decided that they basically needed to indoctrinate the kids.

00:40:44.000 And so the court found, no, this is a violation clearly of parental rights.

00:40:49.000 Parents are not forced to turn their kids over to the state so that those kids can be indoctrinated in left-wing social policies.

00:40:56.000 At its heart, says Samuel Alito, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment protects the ability of those who hold religious beliefs of all kinds to live out their faiths in daily life through the performance of religious acts.

00:41:07.000 And for many people of faith across the country, there are few religious acts more important than the religious education of their children.

00:41:13.000 Of course, of course.

00:41:14.000 In light of the record before us, says the court, we hold the board's introduction to the LGBTQ plus minus divided by assigned inclusive storybooks, combined with its decision to withhold notice to parents and to forbid opt-outs, substantially interferes with the religious development of their children.

00:41:29.000 That is, of course, exactly right.

00:41:32.000 Naturally, Justice Sotomayor dissents, and she suggests that, well, this could mean that you can opt out your kid from teaching about evolution.

00:41:40.000 Well, no, evolution is a scientific theory.

00:41:44.000 It is not laden with values.

00:41:46.000 If you were to suggest that evolution means that human beings are purely animals with no moral obligations, that would be religious indoctrination.

00:41:54.000 Teaching kids the theory of evolution is a different thing.

00:41:57.000 In the same way, if you were to teach public school kids that the law of the land is men can marry men and women can marry women, that would not actually be a violation of religious freedom.

00:42:05.000 It would be a violation of religious freedom if you started talking about the morality of that particular type of relationship.

00:42:13.000 Again, this is something that the court makes absolutely clear.

00:42:17.000 Justice Sotomayor, of course, relies on the evolution canard in order to suggest that if you oppose same-sex marriage, then you're basically a new earther and that everything, you're basically a religious fundamentalist, which, of course, is not remotely the case.

00:42:30.000 You can be anti-same-sex marriage just based on natural law teaching.

00:42:35.000 Essentially, what the left opposes here in the end is parents having control of their own kids.

00:42:42.000 As Matt Barnum writes over at the Wall Street Journal, the ruling says parents can generally opt out of instruction that contradicts a child's religious upbringing.

00:42:51.000 It marks another step toward putting parents in charge of determining what their kids are exposed to in school.

00:42:56.000 Eric Baxter, lawyer for the Beckett Fund, says public schools are not an instrument of the state to force children into conformity.

00:43:02.000 They serve the needs of the parents.

00:43:05.000 Naturally, left-wingers say that this is weaponizing against teachers.

00:43:09.000 Well, teachers are not supposed to be opposed to the agenda of parents.

00:43:12.000 They're supposed to have the same agenda.

00:43:14.000 The whole reason why this has become an issue is because teachers' unions and teachers have decided, in many cases, that they are more important than parents and they get to treat the kids as their laboratory experiments in the morality they wish to purvey.

00:43:27.000 Okay, so that is case number two.

00:43:28.000 Very good case.

00:43:29.000 Case number three, another 6-3 decision.

00:43:32.000 This one holds in Free Speech Coalition versus Paxton, that actually the state of Texas can put age restrictions, age verification restrictions on websites.

00:43:40.000 Now, again, it is kind of amazing that this ever had to go to the Supreme Court.

00:43:45.000 Basically, a bunch of libertarians and companies said that it was a violation of free speech to suggest that there be a window saying that you have to pledge that you are 18 years old and we have to verify via ID that you're 18 years old before you can access.

00:44:00.000 And Justice Thomas says, no, that's ridiculous.

00:44:04.000 He says, to determine whether a law that regulates speech violates the First Amendment, we must consider both the nature of the burden imposed by the law and the nature of the speech at issue.

00:44:12.000 Our precedents distinguish between two types of restrictions on protected speech, content-based laws and content-neutral laws.

00:44:18.000 Content-neutral laws are subject to an intermediate level of scrutiny.

00:44:22.000 Not all speech is protected, including obscenity, defamation, fraud, incitement, and speech integral to criminal conduct.

00:44:30.000 History, tradition, and precedent, says Justice Thomas, recognize states have two distinct powers to address obscenity.

00:44:35.000 They may proscribe outright speech that is obscene to the public at large, and they may prevent children from accessing speech that is obscene to children.

00:44:43.000 Now, again, the left-wing view of this is that it is a deep and abiding violation of free speech to say that you have to verify the age of people who are accessing online.

00:44:53.000 The importance of President Trump having one in 2016, astonishing, because the court would be ruling the opposite way on all of these questions if Hillary Clinton had been president of the United States starting in January of 2017.

00:45:05.000 Okay, meanwhile, the other big continuing story of politics in the United States, of course, is the impending election of Zoran Mamdani as mayor of New York City.

00:45:16.000 So Zoran Mamdani, he continues to be as radical as it is possible to be.

00:45:22.000 He is sympathetic to jihadism. 0.60

00:45:25.000 He is effectively communistic in his approach to the markets. 0.99

00:45:29.000 He is, in fact, racist against white people. 0.91

00:45:31.000 And there's no other way to read the agenda that he has spelled out publicly. 0.99

00:45:36.000 And of course, he's doing all of this as a sort of revolution against Trump, of course.

00:45:40.000 Here is Armam Dani over the weekend suggesting that he is Trump's worst nightmare.

00:45:44.000 I am Donald Trump's worst nightmare as a progressive Muslim immigrant who actually fights for the things that I believe in.

00:45:50.000 And the difference between myself and Andrew Cuomo is that my campaign is not funded by the very billionaires who put Donald Trump in D.C. I don't have to pick up the phone from Bill Ackman or Ken Langone.

00:46:01.000 I have to pick up the phone for the more than 20,000 New Yorkers who contributed an average donation of about $80 to break fundraising records and put our campaign in second place.

00:46:10.000 Okay, so that was, of course, from a little bit earlier in the campaign.

00:46:12.000 Now he's the nominee for the Democratic Party.

00:46:14.000 He's asked by CNN, what are your feelings about capitalism?

00:46:17.000 His answer was, I don't like it.

00:46:19.000 Do you like capitalism?

00:46:21.000 No, I have many critiques of capitalism.

00:46:23.000 And I think ultimately the definition for me of why I call myself a Democratic socialist is the words of Dr. King decades ago.

00:46:31.000 He said, call it democracy or call it democratic socialism.

00:46:34.000 There must be a better distribution of wealth for all of God's children in this country.

00:46:38.000 And that's what I'm focused on is dignity and taking on income inequality.

00:46:42.000 And for too long, politicians have pretended that we're spectators to that crisis of affordability.

00:46:47.000 We're actually actors and we have the choice to exacerbate it like Mayor Adams has done or to respond to it and resolve it like I'm planning to do.

00:46:54.000 He does not like capitalism.

00:46:55.000 You understand?

00:46:56.000 He's in the greatest financial center in the history of the world in New York City and he does not like capitalism. 0.99

00:47:01.000 That would seem to be a bit of a warning flag, you might think, especially given the fact he's a career useless person.

00:47:06.000 He's a 33-year-old who's never held a solid job a day in his life until he's going to become mayor of the biggest city in the country and a financial center of the West.

00:47:16.000 He grew up in the home of a radical anti-colonialist, in scare quotes, professor at Columbia University who's sympathetic to every form of radicalism and an Indian American mother who made radical left-wing films in Hollywood.

00:47:33.000 That is his upbringing.

00:47:35.000 Rich, privileged, as left-wing as possible, became a citizen rather late in life, and now is running for mayor of New York on the platform of I hate capitalism and I hate Donald Trump. 0.99

00:47:46.000 And also white people are bad. 0.71

00:47:47.000 According to the New York Post, New York City mayoral candidate Zorn Mamzani wants to hike property taxes for quote richer and whiter neighborhoods. 0.96

00:47:56.000 It says that in his campaign platform, quote, shift the tax burden from overtaxed homeowners in the outer boroughs to more expensive homes in richer and whiter neighborhoods.

00:48:05.000 And now that's just plain racist and also a violation of the Civil Rights Act.

00:48:08.000 You're not allowed to use the law to discriminate against people on the basis of their race, obviously.

00:48:16.000 Pretty astonishing that he is saying that sort of stuff out loud.

00:48:20.000 But again, he can say all of this sort of stuff because being a radical with the college-educated white liberal base is the feature, not the bug.

00:48:29.000 And there's so many people who are rational who are hearing all this and they're like, wait a second, how is this guy going to win?

00:48:33.000 The answer is he's going to win because of this.

00:48:36.000 Because the virtue signaling on the left is just that strong.

00:48:39.000 It is that important to be radical.

00:48:42.000 And the Omnicause must prevail.

00:48:44.000 They're going to elect a guy who literally said that violence is an artificial construction.

00:48:49.000 Here he was not all that long ago talking about violence while he was promoting defunding of the police.

00:48:55.000 Oftentimes we've even found as legislators when we go into these courts, the term violent crime is even used when people are stealing packages.

00:49:03.000 Violent crime is even used when people are accused of burglary and there happens to be a housing unit in that same dwelling.

00:49:09.000 So violence is an artificial construction.

00:49:12.000 We have to be very clear what is happening here with these district attorneys.

00:49:17.000 That is violence.

00:49:19.000 That is violence at the highest level.

00:49:21.000 Violence is an artificial construction, you see.

00:49:24.000 When somebody does something violent or when they break in or when they burglarize your home, that's non-violent.

00:49:28.000 It's an artificial construction.

00:49:29.000 Well, this is leading the cops to say every cop in the city is going to leave.

00:49:33.000 According to the New York Post, a New York City led by Zoran Mamtani will mean a two-pronged breakdown of public safety, crime spiraling out of control, and NYPD officers leaving en masse, according to experts and veteran cops.

00:49:46.000 They believe the U-turn during the final weeks of his primary campaign, away from defunding the police, was just a craven political move to score votes with undecided voters.

00:49:53.000 Scott Monroe, president of the NYPD Detectives Endowment Association, said, quote, the city would be totally unsafe for people who live here.

00:49:59.000 I go to bed and worry about the phone ringing.

00:50:00.000 I'm worried about my members getting killed.

00:50:02.000 I don't want to plan any funerals, he added.

00:50:04.000 If you put a guy like him in there, our people are going to get hurt.

00:50:06.000 Nobody's going to want the job.

00:50:07.000 It's going to put recruitment back five more steps.

00:50:10.000 NYPD brass are quietly bracing for a potential mass exodus.

00:50:15.000 I've had guys call me and say, if he wins, I'm quitting.

00:50:17.000 A police source said of Mom Dani.

00:50:19.000 It's just weird that New York City would vote for him.

00:50:20.000 I know he's not here for the police.

00:50:23.000 Well, no, he's not.

00:50:24.000 He's there for the radicalism.

00:50:25.000 He's there for the radicalism.

00:50:28.000 And that's demonstrated by how he was getting his support, which was partially out of the state of New York, largely from groups like the Council on American Islamic Relations.

00:50:36.000 He's receiving support from apparently Linda Sarasour, a terrorist supporter.

00:50:40.000 According to justthenews.com, Jerry Dunlevy writing, Zora Mandani's relationship with Sarsour went largely unremarked during the primary race for City Hall, even though he campaigned alongside her and she called him her friend.

00:50:52.000 Apparently, he embraced a nearly decade-long association with Sarsour as he rose from activist to New York state assemblymen and now the Democrat Party's nominee to run America's largest city.

00:51:01.000 Their views on the Jewish state, law enforcement, and far-left policies have been closely aligned.

00:51:06.000 Literally the day after October 7th, he tweeted, peace can only begin by ending the occupation and dismantling apartheid.

00:51:12.000 He condemned Israel on October 8th.

00:51:15.000 That is who he is.

00:51:17.000 He is a radical, and the radicalism is the thing that people like about him in New York City.

00:51:24.000 By October 13th, he was saying that Israel was, quote, on the brink of genocide, and he was arrested while protesting Israel, not Hamas, of course.

00:51:30.000 And now he's pledging that if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Etanyahu comes to New York, he will try to arrest him.

00:51:35.000 He co-founded the Bodouin College Chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, a group that instructed its chapters on October 8th to celebrate a historic win for the Palestinian resistance.

00:51:46.000 He expressed his love for the Holy Land Five.

00:51:49.000 Those were the leaders of the Holy Land Foundation convicted in 2008 for fundraising for Hamas.

00:51:56.000 Again, not a shock.

00:51:57.000 His dad compares Israel to the Nazis.

00:51:59.000 Both of his parents have sided with the Columbia protest encampment, of course.

00:52:05.000 And naturally, this means that Mamzani has earned at least a hat tip from the horseshoe theory, right? 0.94

00:52:10.000 They say they don't agree with his policies, but they do like that he hates Israel.

00:52:14.000 Is it because people are so desperate for government-owned grocery stores or love socialism or love foreign-born midwits running their cities? 0.99

00:52:22.000 Probably not.

00:52:24.000 That guy was the only person in the New York City mayor's debate to say he wanted to focus on New York City.

00:52:31.000 All the candidates were asked, if you could visit a foreign country, what would it be?

00:52:33.000 And they, of course, all had an answer.

00:52:36.000 I think most said Israel, great.

00:52:38.000 And he said, I wouldn't go anywhere.

00:52:39.000 I'd stay in New York.

00:52:40.000 And like, if I want to meet Jewish constituents, I'd go to their synagogues, their homes, or whatever.

00:52:44.000 But I'd be here in New York because that's what I'm doing.

00:52:46.000 I'm running New York.

00:52:46.000 That's my job.

00:52:47.000 Well, he gave the right answer.

00:52:48.000 He gave the right answer.

00:52:49.000 He gave the right answer.

00:52:50.000 At least, and he's talking.

00:52:52.000 I totally oppose his program change.

00:52:53.000 Absolutely.

00:52:55.000 I don't think it works.

00:52:57.000 But he's talking about economics.

00:52:59.000 Yep.

00:53:00.000 And everyone else is talking about foreign policy.

00:53:03.000 Why is it hard to talk about economics, domestic economics?

00:53:06.000 I don't know.

00:53:07.000 Apparently, they don't know how to fix it.

00:53:09.000 Unbelievable.

00:53:10.000 Okay.

00:53:10.000 Again, saying that you oppose his agenda and then praising him for talking about economics as a communist is pretty incredible.

00:53:15.000 But again, the horseshoe theory there is all about the fact that Mamdani hates Israel.

00:53:19.000 And so, of course, do some of the people that you just saw on your screen, which is why they've been expressing so much support for all of the opponents of Israel that they can find on their shows.

00:53:30.000 And that's kind of an amazing horseshoe theory thing happening right there, because that's not actually what Mamdani said.

00:53:34.000 If you actually go back and watch the debate, he didn't say, I don't want to focus on the Middle East.

00:53:38.000 I just want to focus on what's happening here.

00:53:39.000 He literally said he believes in the disestablishment of Israel as a Jewish state.

00:53:42.000 That's what he actually said during the debate.

00:53:45.000 So that's a complete mischaracterization in order to defend Mamdani, because Mamdani is, of course, a rabid Jew hater, a full-scale anti-Semite who supports terrorism.

00:53:55.000 And this does say something about the radical left.

00:53:58.000 The anti-Americanism, the anti-capitalism, the anti-Israel, the anti-Jewish of it, they are all linked. 0.90

00:54:04.000 They are all of a piece.

00:54:06.000 It's all about destroying systems that are successful.

00:54:09.000 It's all about that.

00:54:09.000 It's, by the way, also linked to anti-Christianity.

00:54:11.000 All of these things are of a piece.

00:54:13.000 The Omni cause exists because of its omni-opponent.

00:54:16.000 And the omni-opponent is the system, capitalism, free markets, private property, free speech, strong foreign policy in the face of nefarious and evil enemies.

00:54:32.000 Traditional values like church or synagogue.

00:54:35.000 Those are the things these people oppose.

00:54:37.000 And you saw them in Living Color in Glastonbury over the weekend.

00:54:42.000 So Glastonbury is apparently a giant music festival that happens in the UK broadcast on the BBC.

00:54:49.000 And at this gigantic music festival in Glastonbury, there was a person that I had never heard of, who you also probably have never heard of, calls himself Bob Vylan, right, as opposed to Bob Dylan.

00:55:03.000 And this person got up in advance of a band called Knecap, which has, of course, gone out and campaigned against Israel and talked about how evil Israel is.

00:55:11.000 And he decided that he was just going to call for the death of IDF soldiers.

00:55:14.000 And also, he was going to shout about how the West should essentially fall.

00:55:18.000 Here's what he had to say, shouting at a gigantic crowd of people flying flags for Palestinians, terrorist groups, and all the rest.

00:55:27.000 These are the people the West has imported and then trained their own children to follow. 0.95

00:55:30.000 Good job, West.

00:55:31.000 Excellent job.

00:55:33.000 We've done it all, all right?

00:55:34.000 From working in bars to working for Zionists. 1.00

00:55:38.000 And if we can do this, I promise you, Zlot, you can do absolutely anything that you put your mind to.

00:55:44.000 I'm telling you this.

00:55:46.000 Free Free Free Free Free Free But have you heard this one, though?

00:55:53.000 Death, death to the IVF!

00:55:58.000 This was broadcast on the BBC.

00:56:00.000 Death to the IDF! 0.73

00:56:08.000 Hell yeah, from the river to the sea. 0.96

00:56:10.000 Palestine must be, will be, inshallah, it will be free.

00:56:15.000 So I'm just going to point out, Hamas is not going to attack that music festival, not like the Nova Music Festival, because all of the Hamas stands are in the crowd at this one. 0.85

00:56:22.000 Maybe Hamas is attending. 0.80

00:56:23.000 They found some of their favorite bands.

00:56:25.000 This was broadcast in Living Color on the BBC.

00:56:30.000 By the way, it wasn't just that this human piece of drech suggested death to the IDF.

00:56:36.000 He also ran around the stage shouting, quote, I heard you want your country back. 0.99

00:56:40.000 Shut the f ⁇ up. 1.00

00:56:46.000 Shut the f ⁇ off. 1.00

00:56:47.000 How'd you want your country back? 0.94

00:56:50.000 You can't have that.

00:56:52.000 How do you want your country back?

00:56:58.000 Okay, that's what he said on the stage there.

00:57:00.000 So first of all, great ad for Nigel Farage's reform party, which says, get all of these people out of our country. 0.95

00:57:06.000 Great ad for them.

00:57:07.000 But this is indicative of a rise in not only, it's all the things.

00:57:12.000 It is hatred for the West.

00:57:13.000 It is hatred for the civilization that has granted them all of their power, all of their economic might, all of their privileges, all of their free speech.

00:57:22.000 And that, of course, is combined with the reason why they hate Israel.

00:57:25.000 They don't hate Israel just because it's filled with Jews.

00:57:27.000 Of course, that's one reason.

00:57:28.000 They also hate Israel because Israel, they believe, is an extension of the quote-unquote colonialist West.

00:57:32.000 That is the real reason they hate Israel. 0.79

00:57:36.000 So, again, disgusting and vile, but indicative of a new left-wing base that exists across the political boundaries that separate so many of our countries, but unites the left-wing base.

00:57:49.000 And so what does this say?

00:57:51.000 Well, it says that something ugly is coming, something very ugly is coming.

00:57:53.000 When you look at Zara Mamdani, I was spending the weekend doing some reading, and one of the books that I've been reading, I usually read several books at a time, is a memoir, famous memoir by a writer named Stefan Zweig, who's the author of a wide variety of books, some of them made into movies.

00:58:09.000 He wrote a book called The World of Yesterday, talking about growing up in the Austro-Hungarian Empire and then living through two world wars and what it was like.

00:58:18.000 And he has a section that really struck me, thinking about New York City, thinking about London, the major cities of the West these days.

00:58:24.000 It really struck me.

00:58:25.000 He was talking about Karl Luger.

00:58:27.000 Now, for those who don't know their World War II history, Karl Luger pre-existed World War II by 40 years.

00:58:33.000 Karl Luger was elected mayor of Vienna on an openly anti-Semitic platform.

00:58:38.000 And Stefan Zweig was a resident of Vienna at the time.

00:58:41.000 And he talks about how Vienna was a cosmopolitan city where people from all walks of life would go, they would enjoy, everybody had equal rights, and it all existed under the stability of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

00:58:53.000 And then things started to fall apart.

00:58:55.000 Karl Luger was elected in 1897 to become mayor of Vienna on an openly anti-Semitic platform.

00:59:00.000 The reason he's an important historic figure is not because he was mayor of Vienna.

00:59:03.000 The reason he's an important figure is because there was a young person living in Vienna at the time.

00:59:08.000 His name was Adolf Hitler, and Adolf Hitler was a big admirer of Karl Luger.

00:59:13.000 He saw his success and he decided he was going to emulate that success.

00:59:16.000 And so Stefan Zweig talks about this, now writing retrospectively in 1942.

00:59:22.000 He writes this, quote, the large department stores and mass production were the ruin of the bourgeois and the small employers and manufacturers by hand.

00:59:29.000 An able and popular leader was Dr. Karl Luger, who mastered this unrest and worry and with the slogan, the little man must be helped, carried with him the entire small bourgeois and disgruntled middle class, whose envy of the wealthy was markedly less than the fear of sinking from its bourgeois status into the proletariat.

00:59:44.000 It was exactly the same worry group, which Adolf Hitler later collected around him as his first substantial following. 0.57

00:59:49.000 Karl Luger was also his prototype in another sense, in that he taught him the usefulness of the anti-Semitic catchword, which put an opponent before the eyes of the broad classes of the bourgeois, and at the same time, imperceptibly diverted their hatred from the great landed gentry and the feudal wealthy class.

01:00:03.000 The entire vulgarization and brutalization of present-day politics, the horrible decline of our century, is demonstrated in the comparison of these two figures, Adolf Hitler and Luger. 0.72

01:00:12.000 Karl Luger, with his soft blonde beard, was an imposing person.

01:00:14.000 There shone Karl, the Viennese called him, the handsome Carl.

01:00:17.000 He had been academically educated in an age that placed intellectual culture over all else.

01:00:21.000 He had not gone to school in vain.

01:00:23.000 He could speak in a way that appealed to the people.

01:00:25.000 He was vehement and witty, but even in the most heated speeches, or at least those that were thought to be heated at that time, he never overstepped the bounds of decency.

01:00:32.000 His Streicher, Julius Streicher was the publicist for Hitler, a certain mechanic named Schneider, who operated with legends of ritual murder and similar vulgarities, was carefully held in check. 0.51

01:00:42.000 Luger was modest and above reproach in his private life.

01:00:45.000 He always maintained a certain chivalry toward his opponents.

01:00:49.000 When his movement had finally captured the Viennese town council and he, after Emperor Francis Joseph, who detested the anti-Semitic tendency, had twice refused to sanction it, was appointed burgomaster, his city administration remained perfectly just and even typically democratic.

01:01:04.000 Okay, he was accompanied at the time by the rise of another party called the Christian Social Party in Vienna, which was anchored in the industrial centers, and it made up for its unimportance by wild aggression and unbridled brutality.

01:01:16.000 They dominated the university hall.

01:01:19.000 They engaged in actual violence attacks.

01:01:20.000 The police, who because of the ancient privilege accorded to the university, were not allowed to enter the hall, had to look on inactively from without and see how these cowardly ruffians worked havoc and could do no more than carry off the wounded who were thrown bleeding down the steps into the street by these nationalist rowdies. 0.77

01:01:35.000 So great was the abhorrence of the tragically weak and touchingly humane era for any violent tumult or the shedding of blood, the government retired in the face of the German national terror. 0.87

01:01:43.000 So these two forces is what Stefan Zweig is talking about in his memoirs.

01:01:49.000 The force of Karl Luger, genteel, anti-Semitic, playing on a feeling of the quote-unquote economically dispossessed who aren't quite poor.

01:01:57.000 So lower middle class people, highly educated, who are seeking someone to blame.

01:02:03.000 And so the anti-Semitism was a feature, not a bug.

01:02:06.000 And the German National Party, which invaded the universities and did violence.

01:02:09.000 Does this sound familiar at all?

01:02:11.000 And a state that was unwilling to do anything about it, that sat aside in the name of gentility and civility.

01:02:18.000 Does that sound like anything?

01:02:19.000 Now, again, that doesn't mean that we're existing in 1897 Vienna. 0.87

01:02:23.000 What it does mean is that when you look at what happened in Glastonbury, again, in the UK, which is a country that prosecutes people for tweets that they find inappropriate, and yet they have thousands of people chanting in unison, you want your country back, shut the F up. 0.87

01:02:39.000 And also, death, death to the IDF, a call for murder of Israeli soldiers in solidarity with actual terrorists.

01:02:48.000 If that is the future of the West, then the West is scaro-ed in a massive, massive way.

01:02:54.000 Now, again, what's amazing about all of this is that we are now living in an era where the West should be in its ascendancy if it did not have to deal with this fifth column of people who hate their civilization, the scavengers, I've called them, this coalition of scavengers.

01:03:10.000 And right now, the West is in its ascendancy, not in its decline.

01:03:15.000 Over the weekend, President Trump championed a peace deal that he has now cut between Congo and Rwanda.

01:03:23.000 Apparently, a peace agreement brokered by the White House to stem the bloodshed in Congo, where a militia allegedly backed by Rwanda occupies vast swaths of land, was signed in Washington, D.C. on Friday by officials of those two African nations.

01:03:35.000 Here is President Trump explaining that he is brokering peace throughout the world.

01:03:40.000 This is a tremendous breakthrough.

01:03:41.000 In a few short months, we've now achieved peace between India and Pakistan, Israel and Iran, and the DRC and Rwanda, and a couple of others also.

01:03:55.000 Serbia, you know, was they were getting ready to go to war with a group I won't even mention because it didn't happen.

01:04:03.000 We're able to stop it.

01:04:06.000 So, again, he's right about that.

01:04:08.000 He also continues to maintain his strength in the face of an Iran that pledges nuclear development. 0.96

01:04:15.000 He says to Ayatollah Khomeini, listen, you keep lying and saying that you won.

01:04:19.000 You didn't. 1.00

01:04:20.000 You got your ass kicked. 1.00

01:04:22.000 I'm putting out a little statement. 1.00

01:04:24.000 I'm going to respond to the Ayatollah's statement yesterday that we won the war.

01:04:31.000 We won the war.

01:04:32.000 And I said, look, you're a man of great faith, man who's highly respected in this country.

01:04:38.000 You have to tell the truth. 0.95

01:04:39.000 You got beat to hell. 0.98

01:04:41.000 And Israel was beat up, too. 0.99

01:04:43.000 They were both beat up.

01:04:45.000 And it was a great time to end it.

01:04:47.000 It was quick.

01:04:49.000 They got the hate out.

01:04:50.000 A lot of hate, a lot of hate.

01:04:52.000 It would be great if they didn't have that hate.

01:04:53.000 But the last thing they're thinking about is nuclear weapons right now.

01:04:59.000 He's right about that.

01:05:00.000 And then he adds, listen, if they start developing nuclear weapons, we'll bomb them again if we have to.

01:05:05.000 Would you consider bombing the country again?

01:05:07.000 Without question, absolutely.

01:05:08.000 Have you had any culture?

01:05:09.000 It turned out to be unbelievable.

01:05:12.000 But, you know, our incredible flyers and our I call them the shots.

01:05:18.000 These guys are unbelievable.

01:05:19.000 Think from 52,000 feet, they hit the equivalent of a refrigerator door.

01:05:24.000 They actually hit it right in the center, so it's much smaller than that.

01:05:28.000 So, again, he's right about all of this.

01:05:30.000 At a time when the West should be resurgent and on the upswing, instead, you do have America's major cities, New York City, LA, Chicago, being run by full-scale left-wing nutcases who are deeply ensconced with hatred for their own civilization.

01:05:45.000 Same thing has happened in London.

01:05:46.000 Same thing has happened in the UK.

01:05:47.000 It's been happening in France as well.

01:05:49.000 It's a serious threat to the West.

01:05:51.000 The biggest threat to the West is not external at this point.

01:05:54.000 The biggest threat to the West is internal.

01:05:57.000 The Red-Green Alliance, the Communist Socialists, and the Hamasniks coming together in hatred of their own civilization, which ties into July 4th. 0.82

01:06:07.000 July 4th is coming up.

01:06:09.000 It's going to be great.

01:06:09.000 I hope you're going to have a wonderful Independence Day celebrating the foundation of the greatest country in the history of the world.

01:06:15.000 And we should talk about a myth that has been purveyed about July 4th and about the United States in general.

01:06:20.000 This, of course, is the 1619 myth that America was founded on slavery and that the Revolutionary War was fought for the preservation of slavery.

01:06:27.000 There are so many lies that are told about our civilization, particularly about the foundation of our civilization, in order to somehow claim that our civilization should therefore be torn down. 0.83

01:06:35.000 If you were to poll the morons at Glastonbury or the Democratic primary voters, Razor and Mamdani, about what they think of the United States, they would surely agree with the myth that America was founded on slavery. 0.92

01:06:45.000 And it's not true. 0.96

01:06:47.000 So first of all, let's take a moment to debunk this myth.

01:06:50.000 A huge number of the founders overtly opposed slavery in principle.

01:06:54.000 Even those who were hypocrites and held slaves themselves did not provide significant defenses of slavery.

01:06:58.000 That included George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

01:07:01.000 Washington said, quote, there's not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for its abolition.

01:07:06.000 Thomas Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence called the slave trade an excrable commerce and an affront against human nature itself.

01:07:14.000 John Jay said, it is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished.

01:07:18.000 To contend for our own liberty and to deny that blessing to others involves an inconsistency not to be excused.

01:07:23.000 Of course, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, very passionately, Alexander Hamilton spoke against slavery as well.

01:07:31.000 Now, why was slavery included in the Constitution of the United States originally?

01:07:37.000 The answer was because there were still slaveholding states in the United States.

01:07:41.000 Many of the northern states were not slaveholding states, but the southern states were.

01:07:44.000 And the question was, could you get together a coalition to defeat the British or could you not?

01:07:49.000 And this was not a fight on behalf of promoting slavery.

01:07:53.000 Slavery remained legal in the British Empire until 1833.

01:07:59.000 So this was not a fight in which one side was pro-slavery and one side was anti-slavery.

01:08:03.000 Far from it.

01:08:05.000 The leaders in America ideologically were not in favor of slavery.

01:08:09.000 There was a practical on the ground consideration, which was that many of the southern states were reliant on slave labor.

01:08:15.000 Again, that's an evil, not to be excused, but to claim that the Revolutionary War was about slavery is to be ignorant of history.

01:08:22.000 And in fact, as soon as the revolution began, there were eight states that immediately came out and started abolishing slavery.

01:08:31.000 Vermont, 1777, Pennsylvania, 1780, Massachusetts and New Hampshire, 1783, Rhode Island and Connecticut, 1784, New York, 1799, New Jersey, 1804.

01:08:42.000 As Arthur Millick of the Heritage Foundation points out, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 1 of the Constitution says that Congress could prohibit the importation of slaves starting in 1808.

01:08:51.000 The goal was to phase slavery out on the continent.

01:08:54.000 On the first day that clause was operative, Congress passed and President Thomas Jefferson, famous slaveholder, signed that prohibition into law.

01:09:01.000 In 1787, the Northwest Ordinance was passed, which outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territories.

01:09:06.000 Seven years later, Congress made it illegal to build ships for the purpose of the slave trade.

01:09:10.000 It's important to debunk some of these myths because those myths are then the basis for claiming that the West is uniquely evil.

01:09:16.000 Slavery is a virtually universal human institution that is in fact evil, but was also universal.

01:09:22.000 The question isn't whether the founding fathers were hypocrites about slavery.

01:09:26.000 Some were, some weren't.

01:09:27.000 The question is, why did it take the West to end slavery?

01:09:30.000 In fact, slavery is still practiced in many of the areas that are favorites of the Glastonbury crowd.

01:09:35.000 Many of the places that they are claiming are havens of freedom that require less of a heavy Western hand are places that are still running slavery.

01:09:45.000 A huge amount of the Middle East still engages in slavery.

01:09:47.000 Not Israel, but many of its opponents.

01:09:52.000 This is the point here.

01:09:53.000 July 4th spells a clarion call for human freedom.

01:09:59.000 And it has been seen that way by right-minded people ever since.

01:10:03.000 This is why the very famous Frederick Douglass speech about what is 4th of July to the slave, it doesn't say that the 4th of July is bad. 0.98

01:10:10.000 It says that the problem with the 4th of July is that the principles that the founding fathers sought to instill had not yet been realized.

01:10:16.000 That is the right approach, a historically accurate and mature approach, as opposed to this leftist scumbag wing that simply suggests the West is uniquely evil when in reality, the West is uniquely good.

01:10:27.000 All righty, coming up, we'll get to the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. 0.80

01:10:32.000 The United States Navy has now renamed a Navy ship.

01:10:34.000 It's no longer the USS Harvey Milk.

01:10:36.000 We'll get to that in a moment.

01:10:37.000 First, in order to watch, you have to be a member.

01:10:39.000 If you're not a member, become a member.

01:10:40.000 Use Code Shapiro.

01:10:41.000 Check out for two months free on all annual plans.

The Ben Shapiro Show - June 30, 2025

STILL WINNING: Senate Passes Big, Beautiful Bill, PLUS Supreme Court Sides With Trump!

Episode Stats

Summary

Transcript